|
Post by abdulhay on Dec 11, 2011 15:30:00 GMT 3
I wonder if the great khan didnt die would batu khan and subutai conquer europe?
What is its advantage and none-advantage?
Please enlighten us.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Dec 11, 2011 19:40:57 GMT 3
Jean-Paul Roux's calculations showed that the withdrawal of Mongol troops from Europe in 1242 started before the news of Ögödey Qa'an's death reached Batu. Roux thought that the reason behind this withdrawal was the lack of enough pastures in the region for the horses of Mongol forces.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Dec 11, 2011 21:51:16 GMT 3
With other words the mongols knew they couldnt substain thier cavalry and therefore had a much greater chance of defeat, but thats leads to a question, how come djingiz khan conquerd the khawaramian state, since its mostly deseret , I mean in greater parts of turkmenistan and to an extent uzbekistan also iran isnt either enough pastures or ?
Isnt europe compared to deserts of iran , turkmenistan , uzbekistan much mroe fertile and more grain to feed the horses and men with?
|
|
|
Post by irelander on Dec 18, 2011 4:42:48 GMT 3
Mongol horses didn't use grain they just graised. They were very hardy animals and could live anywhare but tropical rainforesets. Only the heat and dense forests of Vietnam and southern India and the Arabs lack of water could stop them. They were even able to live on mountains such as Tibet.
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Dec 18, 2011 14:44:51 GMT 3
I doubt also that the problem would be with feeding of their horses. Much bigger problem to find enough food for their army.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Dec 27, 2011 1:08:41 GMT 3
How can the mongols find food for their soldiers in desert places as kazakhstan , turkmenistan uzbekistan but not i europe?
it seem very strange to me,
also mongols have done something no other army has done , either the nazi or napoloen, that is to conquer russia, not even a modern army could conquer russia, the nazi but mongols actually attacked at winter russia and defeated it, if mongols can conquere russia during winter than other than the military obstacle shouldnt be a problem to maintance and survive in central and western europe.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Dec 27, 2011 13:54:18 GMT 3
One thing to bear in mind is that Mongols were not attacking "Russia" as we know it now. At that time it wasn't a strong integrated state but rather a network of relatively small Ancient Rus principalities that were constantly fighting between each other, the Russian nation itself didn't even exist at all at that time. Mongols never faced a unified army of all the Rus states or something like that. So, during their conquest of Russian principalities they cracked them one by one, usually succesful, but with different level of success, which also depended on a willing to fight and "fierceness" of each principality. For example, Mongols took Kiev, which was supposed to be one of the most significant and strongest Rus cities in 6 days, but they were able to conquer a very tiny town of Kozelsk only in 7 weeks after suffering high casualties, because the people of Kozelsk decided to fight till death. Moreover, some Rus princes actually prefered to side with Mongols or to flee rather than fight them. But during the invasion of Napoleon and Nazists Russia was a very strong, massive state with powerful army and endless resources which was a total opposite to what "Russia" was in the 13th century.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Dec 27, 2011 23:53:28 GMT 3
Interesting view, I havent seen it from that point of view.
But still u didnt explain the reason as maintance your army in winter which the mongols did and not either napoleon or nazis could do
|
|
|
Post by Kilij Arslan on Dec 28, 2011 0:24:28 GMT 3
Interesting view, I havent seen it from that point of view. But still u didnt explain the reason as maintance your army in winter which the mongols did and not either napoleon or nazis could do As far as I remember it was pretty much covered in Timothy May's "The Mongol Art of War".
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Dec 28, 2011 1:05:25 GMT 3
But the winter was not the main reason why Napoleon and Nazists lost in Russia. So, of course, we can talk a lot about how good Mongols were at surviving the Russian winter, but it won't really help the comparison between them and the former two.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Dec 28, 2011 22:56:53 GMT 3
I will check that up, but if you know some of the theories please share,
In school we learned that the main reason with other reasons was that the winter made both napoleon and nazis loose war against russia, along with burn earth tactic, less built infrastructure as poor roads and less extant of food supplies the terrain had to offer.
The astonishing thing is that even a modern army like the nazis couldnt compansate the fact of poor roads which the mongols did in some how.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Dec 29, 2011 12:34:19 GMT 3
There were not even strong colds in Russia until almost the very end of Napoleon's retreat. He lost primarily due to the overextension of his resources and very long and unreliable supply line.
Secondly, ascribing Nazists defeat to cold is wrong. Cold played some role, but very far from decisive. Nazists lost because they were military defeated by the Soviet Army and similarly to Napoleon they simply didn't have enough resources for a long war of attrition.
Both factors however are not applicable to Mongols' invasion of Russia because they didn't fight "the Russian empire" but just fragmented Rus city-states.
Mongols faced much more dangerous potential enemies in China and Kwarezm than in Russia.
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Dec 29, 2011 16:16:17 GMT 3
I dont count that as a military victory to through your men in to death, soviet "russia" won the war against nazi thanks to human sacrifice , not by military means or strategic thinking
I always thought that mongols conquest of khwarazm was the easiet Gengis Khan did, even if khwarazm was a stronger opponent, the reason gengis khan got famous was of his conquest of a much powerful state , the khwaramzian kingdom
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Dec 30, 2011 17:02:29 GMT 3
I dont count that as a military victory to through your men in to death, soviet "russia" won the war against nazi thanks to human sacrifice , not by military means or strategic thinking I always thought that mongols conquest of khwarazm was the easiet Gengis Khan did, even if khwarazm was a stronger opponent, the reason gengis khan got famous was of his conquest of a much powerful state , the khwaramzian kingdom Soviet victories in Stalingrad and in operation "Bagration," for example, are taught in almost all military academies as examples of brilliant strategic operational thinking. May be if you have some time, you could read more books about WWII and improve your knowledge about the subject. But if you're too busy, may be you can read something on the internet. Wikipedia would be a good starting point...
|
|
|
Post by abdulhay on Dec 30, 2011 19:33:55 GMT 3
I dont call shouting your own soldiers as a good stragetic tactics which the soviet army did, also there wasnt enough weapons so they only handed out bullets to some when attacking, , do u call that good tactics, ?
did u forgett the human sacrifice soviet did, over 20 million dead soldiers, that really gigantics numbers , isnt it, much more than the germans suffered,
maybe later soviet stragetics were better than previous, but dont forgett that the nazist took several million as prisoners of war from the soviet army , u tend to be blind for the causilties soviet had during the war but of course u are native of the land, and I presume are proud of getting rid of nazi , which I also would be if I was a russian,
|
|